RESUMO
Foraging is a goal-directed behavior that balances the need to explore the environment for resources with the need to exploit those resources. In Drosophila melanogaster, distinct phenotypes have been observed in relation to the foraging gene (for), labeled the rover and sitter. Adult rovers explore their environs more extensively than do adult sitters. We explored whether this distinction would be conserved in humans. We made use of a distinction from regulatory mode theory between those who "get on with it," so-called locomotors, and those who prefer to ensure they "do the right thing," so-called assessors. In this logic, rovers and locomotors share similarities in goal pursuit, as do sitters and assessors. We showed that genetic variation in PRKG1, the human ortholog of for, is associated with preferential adoption of a specific regulatory mode. Next, participants performed a foraging task to see whether genetic differences associated with distinct regulatory modes would be associated with distinct goal pursuit patterns. Assessors tended to hug the boundary of the foraging environment, much like behaviors seen in Drosophila adult sitters. In a patchy foraging environment, assessors adopted more cautious search strategies maximizing exploitation. These results show that distinct patterns of goal pursuit are associated with particular genotypes of PRKG1, the human ortholog of for.
Assuntos
Proteína Quinase Dependente de GMP Cíclico Tipo I/genética , Proteína Quinase Dependente de GMP Cíclico Tipo I/metabolismo , Variação Genética , Adolescente , Adulto , Animais , Proteínas Quinases Dependentes de GMP Cíclico/genética , Proteínas Quinases Dependentes de GMP Cíclico/metabolismo , Proteínas de Drosophila/genética , Proteínas de Drosophila/metabolismo , Drosophila melanogaster , Feminino , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMO
Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing is gaining recognition from physicians, pharmacists and patients as a tool for evidence-based medication management. However, seemingly similar PGx testing panels (and PGx-based decision support tools) can diverge in their technological specifications, as well as the genetic factors that determine test specificity and sensitivity, and hence offer different values for users. Reluctance to embrace PGx testing is often the result of unfamiliarity with PGx technology, a lack of knowledge about the availability of curated guidelines/evidence for drug dosing recommendations, and an absence of wide-spread institutional implementation efforts and educational support. Demystifying an often confusing and variable PGx marketplace can lead to greater acceptance of PGx as a standard-of-care practice that improves drug outcomes and provides a lifetime value for patients. Here, we highlight the key underlying factors of a PGx test that should be considered, and discuss the current progress of PGx implementation.
